Tuesday, July 31, 2012

“Toxic”
drywall, formaldehyde emissions, mold, asbestos, lead-based paint, radon, PCBs
in caulk, and many other indoor pollution problems have concerned federal
policy makers and regulators during the last 30 years. Some problems have
been resolved, others remain of concern, and new indoor pollution problems
continually emerge. This report describes common indoor pollutants and
health effects that have been linked to indoor pollution, federal statutes that
have been used to address indoor pollution, key issues, and some general
policy options for Congress.

Indoor pollutants are chemicals that are potentially harmful to people and
found in the habitable portions of buildings, including homes, schools,
offices, factories, and other public gathering places. Some indoor
pollutants, like lead or ozone, are also outdoor pollutants. Others, like formaldehyde
or asbestos, are primarily indoor pollutants. Indoor pollutants may be natural
(for example, carbon monoxide or radon) or synthetic (polychlorinated
biphenyls [PCBs]), and may originate indoors or outdoors. They may be
deliberately produced, naturally occurring, or inadvertent byproducts of
human activities. For example, they may arise indoors as uncontrolled emissions
from building materials, paints, or furnishings, from evaporation following the
use of cleaning supplies or pesticides, or as a combustion byproduct as a
result of heating or cooking. Some pollution that originates outdoors
infiltrates through porous basements (e.g., radon) or is inadvertently
brought into indoor spaces, perhaps through heating or air conditioning systems
or in contaminated drinking water. Often pollutants accumulate indoors as
a result of deliberate improvements to increase energy efficiency, for
example by reducing building permeability to air.

The health risks posed by indoor pollutants have concerned scientists for many
years. Because people spend a high percentage of their time indoors, and
concentrations of pollutants often are higher in indoor air than outdoor
air, the risks due to exposure can be higher than many other environmental
risks. Moreover, a 2011 report by the Institute of Medicine warns that many
indoor environmental quality problems might get worse if adaptations to
climate change are made without better information and programs aimed at
pollution prevention.

No federal agency has broad authority concerning pollution indoors.
Nonetheless, numerous federal agencies have some authority to control
particular indoor pollutants or sources of pollution or the quality of
indoor environments in a particular class of structures. For example, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has authority under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) to study and issue safety guidelines for
radon and lead-based paint hazards. The Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) authorizes EPA also to
respond to releases of hazardous substances into the outdoor environment which
may migrate indoors. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has
authority to set emission limits for, and to restrict uses of, certain
chemicals in consumer products. The Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and the General Services Administration (GSA) regulate
some indoor pollutants in federal buildings. These and other agencies have conducted
research to examine the risks of various indoor pollutants.

Concerns about coordination of federal efforts to address indoor pollution have
been expressed by the general public, the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO), and the U.S. Congress. But any federal response to indoor
pollution is complicated by the need to coordinate with local and state
governments as well to address potentially overlapping jurisdictions and
resources. Options for Congress range from maintenance or improvement of
the status quo to reduction or expansion of federal involvement in
research, information dissemination, or regulation.

Date of Report: July 23, 2012
Number of Pages: 42Order Number: R42620Price: $29.95

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP
or #CRSreports

Monday, July 30, 2012

This
report surveys existing law for legal issues that have arisen, or may
arise in the future, on account of climate change and government responses
thereto.

At the threshold of many climate-change-related lawsuits are two barriers—whether
the plaintiff has standing to sue and whether the claim being made
presents a political question. Both barriers have forced courts to apply
amorphous standards in a new and complex context.

Efforts to mitigate climate change—that is, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions—have spawned a host of legal issues. The Supreme Court resolved
a big one in 2007—the Clean Air Act (CAA), it said, does authorize EPA to
regulate GHG emissions. Quite recently, a host of issues raised by EPA’s
efforts to carry out that authority were resolved in the agency’s favor by the
D.C. Circuit. Another issue is whether EPA’s “endangerment finding” for
GHG emissions from new motor vehicles will compel EPA to move against GHG
emissions under other CAA authorities. Still other mitigation issues are
(1) the role of the Endangered Species Act in addressing climate change;
(2) how climate change must be considered under the National Environmental
Policy Act; (3) liability and other questions raised by carbon capture and
sequestration; (4) constitutional constraints on land use regulation and
state actions against climate change; and (5) whether the public trust
doctrine applies to the atmosphere.

Liability for harms allegedly caused by climate change has raised another crop
of legal issues. The Supreme Court decision that the CAA bars federal
judges from imposing their own limits on GHG emissions from power plants
has led observers to ask: Can plaintiffs alleging climate change harms
still seek monetary damages, and are state law claims still allowed? The one
ruling so far says no to both. Questions of insurance policy coverage are
also likely to be litigated. Finally, the applicability of international
law principles to climate change has yet to be resolved.

Water shortages thought to be induced by climate change likely will lead to
litigation over the nature of water rights. Shortages have already
prompted several lawsuits over whether cutbacks in water delivered from
federal projects effect Fifth Amendment takings or breaches of contract.

Sea level rise and extreme precipitation linked to climate change raise
questions as to (1) the effect of sea level rise on the beachfront owner’s
property line; (2) whether public beach access easements migrate with the
landward movement of beaches; (3) design and operation of federal levees;
and (4) government failure to take preventive measures against climate change
harms.

Other adaptation responses to climate change raising legal issues, often
property rights related, are beach armoring (seawalls, bulkheads, etc.),
beach renourishment, and “retreat” measures. Retreat measures seek to move
existing development away from areas likely to be affected by floods and
sea level rise, and to discourage new development there.

Natural disasters to which climate change contributes may prompt questions as
to whether response actions taken in an emergency are subject to relaxed
requirements and, similarly, as to the rebuilding of structures destroyed
by such disasters just as they were before.

Finally, immigration and refugee law appear not to cover persons forced to relocate
because of climate change impacts such as drought or sea level rise.

Date of Report: July 2, 2012
Number of Pages: 33Order Number: R42613Price: $29.95

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP
or #CRSreports

If
constructed, the Keystone XL pipeline would transport crude oil (e.g.,
synthetic crude oil or diluted bitumen) derived from oil sands in Alberta,
Canada to destinations in the United States. Because the pipeline crosses
an international border, it requires a Presidential Permit that is issued by
the Department of State (DOS). The permit decision rests on a “national
interest” determination, a term not defined in the authorizing Executive
Orders. DOS states that it has “significant discretion” in the factors it
examines in this determination. Key events related to the Presidential
Permit include:

September 19, 2008: TransCanada submitted an application for a
Presidential Permit for its Keystone XL pipeline.

Although some groups have opposed previous oil pipeline permits, opposition to
the Keystone XL proposal has generated substantially more interest among
environmental stakeholders. Pipeline opponents are not a monolithic group:
some raise concerns about potential local impacts, such as oil spills or
extraction impacts in Canada; some argue the pipeline would have national energy
and climate change policy implications.

A number of key studies indicate that oil sands crude has a higher greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions intensity than many other forms of crude oil. The
primary reason for the higher intensity: oil sands are heavy oils with a
high viscosity, requiring more energy- and resourceintensive activities to
extract. However, analytical results vary due to different modeling assumptions.
Moreover, industry stakeholders point out that many analyses indicate that GHG emissions
from oil sands crude oil are comparable to other heavy crudes, some of which
are produced and/or consumed in the United States.

Because of oil sands’ increased emissions intensity, further oil sands
development runs counter to some stakeholders’ energy and climate change
policy objectives. These objectives may vary based on differing views
concerning the severity of climate change risk and/or the need for significant
mitigation efforts. Opponents worry that oil sands crude oil will account for a
greater percentage of U.S. oil consumption over time, making GHG emissions
reduction more difficult. On the other hand, neither issuance of a
Presidential Permit nor increased oil sands development would preclude the
implementation of energy/climate policies that would support less carbon intensive
fuels or energy efficiency improvements.

A primary local/regional environmental concern of any oil pipeline is the risk
of a spill. Environmental groups have argued that both the pipeline’s
operating parameters and the material being transported imposes an
increased risk of spill. Industry stakeholders have been critical of these
assertions. To examine the concerns, Congress included provisions in P.L.
112-90 requiring a review of current oil pipeline regulations and a risk
analysis of oil sands crude.

Date of Report: July 16, 2012
Number of Pages: 54Order Number: R42611Price: $29.95

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP
or #CRSreports

Friday, July 27, 2012

From
an environmental quality standpoint, much of the public and policy interest in
animal agriculture has focused on impacts on water resources, because
animal waste, if not properly managed, can harm water quality through
surface runoff, direct discharges, spills, and leaching into soil and
groundwater. A more recent issue is the contribution of air emissions from
animal feeding operations (AFOs), enterprises where animals are raised in
confinement. This report provides background on the latter issue.

AFOs can affect air quality through emissions of gases such as ammonia and
hydrogen sulfide, particulate matter, volatile organic compounds,
hazardous air pollutants, and odor. These pollutants and compounds have a
number of environmental and human health effects.

Agricultural operations have been treated differently from other businesses under
numerous federal and state laws. Some environmental laws specifically
exempt agriculture from regulatory provisions, and some are designed so
that farms are not subject to most, if not all, of the regulatory impact.
The primary regulatory focus on environmental impacts has occurred under the
Clean Water Act. In addition, AFOs that emit large quantities of air pollutants
may be subject to Clean Air Act regulation. Some livestock operations also
may be regulated under the release reporting requirements of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
Questions about the applicability of these laws to livestock and poultry
operations have been controversial and have drawn congressional attention.
Legislation in the 112th Congress would exclude “manure” from the
definition of hazardous substance under CERCLA and remove reporting
liability under CERCLA and EPCRA (H.R. 2997 and S. 1729). Agriculture’s role as both
a source of and a “sink” for greenhouse gases also has been of interest in
connection with addressing the global challenge of climate change.

Enforcement of environmental laws requires accurate measurement of emissions to
determine whether regulated pollutants are emitted in quantities that
exceed specified thresholds. Two reports by the National Research Council
evaluated the current state of the science and approaches for estimating
AFO air emissions to guide future management and regulatory efforts. In an
effort to collect scientifically credible data on air emissions, in January
2005 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a plan negotiated
with segments of the animal agriculture industry. Called the Air
Compliance Agreement, it is intended to produce air quality monitoring
data on AFO emissions, while at the same time protect participants through a “safe
harbor” from liability under certain provisions of federal environmental laws.
Issues related to this agreement, which has been controversial among
environmental advocates, state and local air quality officials, and some
industry groups, are discussed separately in CRS Report RL32947, Air
Quality Issues and Animal Agriculture: EPA’s Air Compliance Agreement.

The 112th Congress has shown considerable interest in many of the issues
discussed in this report and, more broadly, in the impact of federal
regulation on the agriculture sector.

Date of Report: July 20, 2012
Number of Pages: 35Order Number: RL32948Price: $29.95

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP
or #CRSreports

From
an environmental quality standpoint, much of the interest in animal agriculture
has focused on impacts on water resources, because animal waste, if not
properly managed, can harm water quality through surface runoff, direct
discharges, spills, and leaching into soil and groundwater. A more recent
issue is the contribution of emissions from animal feeding operations (AFO), enterprises
where animals are raised in confinement, to air pollution. AFOs can affect air
quality through emissions of gases such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide,
particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants,
and odor. These pollutants and compounds have a number of environmental
and human health effects.

Agricultural operations that emit large quantities of air pollutants may be
subject to Clean Air Act (CAA) regulation and permits. Further, some
livestock operations also may be regulated under the release reporting
requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (Superfund, or CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). Questions about the applicability of these laws to livestock
and poultry operations have been controversial and have drawn congressional
attention.

Enforcement of these federal environmental laws requires accurate measurement
of emissions to determine whether regulated pollutants are emitted in
quantities that exceed specified thresholds. Yet experts believe that
existing data provide a poor basis for regulating and managing air emissions
from AFOs. In an effort to collect scientifically credible data, in 2005 the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) announced a plan that had been negotiated with segments
of the animal agriculture industry. Called the Air Compliance Agreement, it is
intended to produce air quality monitoring data on AFO emissions during a
two-year study, while at the same time protecting participants through a “safe
harbor” from liability under certain provisions of federal environmental
laws. Many producer groups supported the agreement as essential to gathering
valid data that are needed for decision making. However, critics, including environmentalists
and state and local air quality officials, said that the agreement would grant
all participating producers a sweeping liability shield for violations of
environmental laws, yet because fewer than 30 farms would be monitored, it
was too limited in scope to yield scientifically credible estimates of AFO
emissions. Some industry groups had their own questions and reservations.
In August 2006, EPA approved agreements with 2,568 AFOs, representing nearly
14,000 farms. Monitoring of 25 farms in nine states occurred from mid-2007 to
the end of 2009. In January 2011, EPA released the data from the
individual monitored sites and began developing improved emissions
estimating methodologies (EEMs) based on the data. Draft EEMs for some
animal sectors were released for review and public comment in February 2012 and
have been widely critiqued, including by EPA’s science advisers.

Separately from the monitoring study, in December 2008, EPA issued a rule to
exempt animal waste emissions to the air from most CERCLA and EPCRA
reporting requirements. Legal challenges to the rule followed. In October
2010, a federal court approved the government’s request to remand the rule
to EPA for reconsideration and possible modification.

This report reviews key issues associated with the Air Compliance Agreement.
Background information on air emissions from poultry and livestock
operations, relevant federal environmental laws and regulations,
congressional interest, state activities, and research needs are discussed
in CRS Report RL32948, Air Quality Issues and Animal Agriculture: A Primer,
by Claudia Copeland.

Date of Report: July 20, 2012
Number of Pages: 18Order Number: RL32947Price: $29.95

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP
or #CRSreports

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Hydraulic
fracturing is a technique developed initially to stimulate oil production from
wells in declining oil reservoirs. With technological advances, hydraulic
fracturing is now widely used to initiate oil and gas production in unconventional
(low-permeability) oil and gas formations that were previously
inaccessible. This process now is used in more than 90% of new oil and gas wells.
Hydraulic fracturing is done after a well is drilled and involves injecting
large volumes of water, sand (or other propping agent), and specialized
chemicals under enough pressure to fracture the formations holding the oil
or gas. The sand or other proppant holds the fractures open to allow the
oil or gas to flow freely out of the formation and into a production well.

Its application, along with horizontal drilling, for production of natural gas
(methane) from tight gas sands, unconventional shale formations, and coal
beds, has resulted in the marked expansion of estimated U.S. natural gas
reserves in recent years. Similarly, hydraulic fracturing is enabling the
development of tight oil resources, such as the Bakken and Eagle Ford
formations. However, the rapidly increasing and geographically expanding
use of fracturing, has raised concerns over its potential impacts on
groundwater and drinking water supplies, and has led to calls for greater state
and/or federal oversight of this activity.

Historically, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had not regulated the
underground injection of fluids for hydraulic fracturing of oil or gas
production wells. In 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
ruled that fracturing for coalbed methane (CBM) production in Alabama
constituted underground injection and must be regulated under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA). This ruling led EPA to study the risk that hydraulic
fracturing for CBM production might pose to drinking water sources. In
2004, EPA reported that the risk was small, except where diesel was used,
and that national regulation was not needed. However, to address regulatory uncertainty
the ruling created, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) revised the SDWA term
“underground injection” to explicitly exclude the injection of fluids and
propping agents (except diesel fuel) used for hydraulic fracturing
purposes. Consequently, EPA currently lacks authority under the SDWA to
regulate hydraulic fracturing, except where diesel fuel is used. (In May,
EPA issued draft permitting guidance for use of diesel during fracturing.) As
the use of this process has grown, some in Congress would like to revisit
this statutory exclusion.

Several relevant bills are pending. H.R. 1084 and S. 587 would repeal the
exemption for hydraulic fracturing operations established in EPAct 2005,
and amend the term “underground injection” to include explicitly the
injection of fluids used in hydraulic fracturing operations, thus authorizing
EPA to regulate this process under the SDWA. The bills also would require
disclosure of the chemicals used in the fracturing process. S. 2248 and
H.R. 4322 would specify that a state has sole authority to regulate
hydraulic fracturing on federal lands within state boundaries. EPA’s FY2010
appropriations act urged the agency to study the relationship between hydraulic fracturing
and drinking water quality. Interim and final reports are expected in 2012 and
2014, respectively. Meanwhile, numerous states are reviewing or have
revised their oil and gas rules to address the increased use of
high-volume hydraulic fracturing.

This report reviews past and proposed treatment of hydraulic fracturing under
the SDWA, the principal federal statute for regulating the underground
injection of fluids to protect groundwater sources of drinking water. It reviews
current SDWA provisions for regulating underground injection activities,
and discusses some possible implications of, and issues associated with, enactment
of legislation authorizing EPA to regulate hydraulic fracturing under this
statute.

Date of Report: July 12, 2012
Number of Pages: 42Order Number: R41760Price: $29.95
Document available via
e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP
or #CRSreports

Much
progress has been made in achieving the ambitious goals that Congress
established nearly 40 years ago in the Clean Water Act (CWA) to restore
and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
nation’s waters. However, long-standing problems persist, and new problems
have emerged. Water quality problems are diverse, ranging from pollution runoff
from farms and ranches, city streets, and other diffuse or “nonpoint”
sources, to toxic substances discharged from factories and sewage
treatment plants.

There is little agreement among stakeholders about what solutions are needed
and whether new legislation is required to address the nation’s remaining
water pollution problems. For some time, efforts to comprehensively amend
the CWA have stalled as interests have debated whether and exactly how to
change the law. Congress has instead focused legislative attention on enacting narrow
bills to extend or modify selected CWA programs, but not any comprehensive
proposals.

For several years, the most prominent legislative water quality issue has
concerned financial assistance for municipal wastewater treatment
projects. House and Senate committees have approved bills on several
occasions, but, for various reasons, no legislation has been enacted. At issue
has been the role of the federal government in assisting states and cities in
meeting needs to rebuild, repair, and upgrade wastewater treatment plants,
especially in light of capital costs that are projected to be as much as
$390 billion. In the 111th Congress, the House passed H.R. 1262 to reauthorize
the CWA’s State Revolving Fund (SRF) program to finance wastewater
infrastructure, and a companion bill, S. 1005, was approved by the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee. No legislation was enacted, and
reauthorization legislation has been introduced again in the 112th Congress
(H.R. 3145).

Programs that regulate activities in wetlands also have been of interest,
especially CWA Section 404, which has been criticized by landowners for
intruding on private land-use decisions and imposing excessive economic
burdens. Environmentalists view this regulatory program as essential for
maintaining the health of wetland ecosystems, and they are concerned about
court rulings that have narrowed regulatory protection of wetlands and
about related administrative actions. Many stakeholders desire
clarification of the act’s regulatory jurisdiction, but they differ on
what solutions are appropriate. In the 111th Congress, the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee approved a bill that sought to clarify but not
expand the CWA’s geographic scope (S. 787). Because some stakeholders
believe that the bills would expand federal jurisdiction—not simply
clarify it—the bills were controversial, and no legislation was enacted. In
contrast to approaches reflected in earlier proposals, bills in the 112th Congress
would narrow the scope of the act’s jurisdiction (S. 2122/H.R. 4304).

These issues have drawn interest in the 112th Congress, as well. In addition, a
number of other CWA issues have been the subject of congressional
oversight and legislation, with some legislators highly critical of recent
regulatory initiatives and others more supportive of EPA’s actions. Among
the topics of interest are environmental and economic impacts of Chesapeake Bay
restoration efforts, federal promulgation of water quality standards in
Florida, regulation of surface coal mining activities in Appalachia, and
other CWA regulatory actions. Congressional interest in several of these
issues has been reflected in debate over policy provisions of legislation providing
appropriations for EPA in FY2012 (P.L. 112-74) and FY2013 (H.R. 6091).

Date of Report: July 12, 2012
Number of Pages: 27Order Number: R41594Price: $29.95
Document available via
e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP
or #CRSreports

Friday, July 13, 2012

As
a result of enforcement actions and settlements for noncompliance with federal
pollution control requirements, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) reported that, for FY2011, regulated entities committed to invest an
estimated $19.0 billion for judicially mandated pollution controls and
cleanup, and for implementing mutually agreed upon (supplemental) environmentally
beneficial projects. EPA estimates that these efforts achieved commitments to reduce,
treat, or eliminate 1.8 billion pounds of pollutants in the environment,
primarily from air and water. EPA also assessed more than $152.0 million
in civil penalties (administrative and judicial) and $35.0 million in
criminal fines and restitution during FY2011. Nevertheless, noncompliance
with federal pollution control laws remains a continuing concern. The overall effectiveness
of the enforcement organizational framework, the balance between state autonomy and
federal oversight, and the adequacy of funding are long-standing congressional
concerns.

This report provides an overview of the statutory framework, key players,
infrastructure, resources, tools, and operations associated with
enforcement and compliance of the major pollution control laws and
regulations administered by EPA. It also outlines the roles of federal (including
regional offices) and state regulators, as well as the regulated community. Understanding
the many facets of how all federal pollution control laws are enforced, and the responsible
parties involved, can be challenging. Enforcement of the considerable body of
these laws involves a complex framework and organizational setting.

The array of enforcement/compliance tools employed to achieve and maintain
compliance includes monitoring, investigation, administrative and judicial
(civil and criminal) actions and penalties, and compliance assistance and
incentive approaches. Most compliance violations are resolved
administratively by the states and EPA. EPA concluded 1,735 final
administrative penalty orders in FY2010. Civil judicial actions, which may
be filed by states or EPA, are the next most frequent enforcement action.
EPA may refer civil cases to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ),
referring 222 civil cases in FY2011. The U.S. Attorney General’s Office and DOJ’s Environmental
Crimes Section, or the State Attorneys General, in coordination with EPA
criminal investigators and general counsel, may prosecute criminal
violations against individuals or entities who knowingly disregard
environmental laws or are criminally negligent.

Federal appropriations for environmental enforcement and compliance activities
have remained relatively constant in recent fiscal years. Some contend
that overall funding for enforcement activities has not kept pace with
inflation or with the increasingly complex federal pollution control
requirements. Congress appropriated $583.4 million for enforcement activities
for FY2012 a decrease below the $593.5 million enacted for FY2011, and the
$596.7 million enacted for FY2010, but an increase above the $568.9
million enacted for FY2009 and $553.5 million for FY2008. The President’s
FY2013 budget request included $615.9 million for EPA enforcement activities.
To date, Congress has not completed action on the FY2013 appropriations for
EPA.

Date of Report: July 7, 2012
Number of Pages: 53Order Number: RL34384Price: $29.95

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP
or #CRSreports